This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Honestly, Spotify is only half bad compared to the real scumbags of this industry, and that's the "rights holders".
It's not the artists who created the music I'm talking about. It's the record companies taking the largest piece for themselves.
They are the ones earning on other people's talent and success.
But...but...muh "discovery"
I'll die on that hill. 90% of the artists I listen to, I found through spotify's algorithms.
Well, their CEO Daniel Ek's investment company Prima Materia "invested €100 million ($114 million USD) in Helsing, an artificial intelligence company based out of Europe that assists in military technological ventures. "
So I'm happy to take my *streaming business elsewhere.
Sometimes, I see some of the takes on here, and it's hardly surprising that the fediverse isn't particularly popular.
Spotify are somewhat responsible for their current position. They hired too many people, extended into markets they didn't need to enter, and have a CEO that has blown money in places that didn't need it. Let's not forget that Spotify spent $300m on sponsoring FC Barcelona, which could have allowed Spotify to employ ALL of the employees it laid off for 1-2 years. Spotify had no need to give $200m to Joe Rogan, either! That's half a billion spunked up the wall on decisions that have done nothing for the company but cause grief. Instead, they could have focused their efforts on paying more out to smaller artists that provide the long tail for their service, while also making deals to promote merch and tour dates where possible.
With that being said, if you think that Spotify didn't play a huge part in making music streaming accessible you're just being contrarian for no reason. They provided (at the time) a solid application, good connectivity with services like last.fm, and had the social connection sorted from the start. Once phones took off, Spotify removed the need for mp3's for the majority of people, largely killing iTunes. Spotify was the winner of the music streaming wars.
Frankly, a lot of people were praising Spotify for their "good" severance package, but IMO shareholders should be livid, and should be calling for a new person at the helm.
removed the need for.mp3s
Im not sure this was a win
It didn't buy the format and then cancelled it, it did it purely by providing a more convenient way of listening to music than downloading mp3s, so yes, it's a win
I call bullshit. Yeah I'm sure they spend 2/3 of their income on rights holders, mainly Joe Rogan, Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift.
The average musician isn't making shit, and yet the spotify execs are sipping champagne.
The rights holders are the record labels. As much as artists want to complain about Spotify they should direct their criticism to their record labels.
Spotify is far from powerless in this arrangement too. Nobody is forcing them to be in this business.
Pretty sure Spotify is more powerless than you think. The record labels nearly burned their industry to the ground in the 2000s over digital piracy.
Netflix wouldn't be around today if it wasn't for their move into becoming their own movie studio thanks to just about every big Hollywood studio pulling out, arrogantly thinking that they can each run their own service for a bigger slice of the pie. Newsflash, it's going really bad. Especially for Disney, who deserve everything coming to them.
I reckon if Spotify makes even a small move to undermine the big record labels, they would yank all the popular music. Spotify either wouldn't last long or best case they down size into a niche music platform.
"not making profits"
Just massive salaries and equity
You know they don't pay the artist directly? Like with physical the ones taking the biggest share are the labels... Also the average musician isn't making shit cause compared to a very few bigger artists they represent an extremely low percentage of the overall streams on the platform.
Man, a lot of people here don't understand how the music industry works. From the perspective of someone who's been loosely following the music industry, what I've learned is that it doesn't matter if Spotify gave up 2/3rds of their revenue, or 100% of it, the artists would still make fuck all.
Why?
The labels love taking their cuts and as a result, artists make very little. Instead of taking the blame for giving artists a <10% cut of the label's revenue from their music (my understanding is that it's pretty common for musicians to get <10%, sometimes <5% if you're on a particularly shitty label), the labels are blaming platforms like Spotify.
Now, I'm not saying that Spotify is blameless, however I think there's a lot of misdirection from the labels going on. I don't remember anyone complaining about pre-spotify services like Pandora Radio for not paying out enough when they were largely ad-supported, which is another reason I'm not totally buying the, "it's cause it's free" argument either.
Fuck, remember Pandora?
Labels are an outdated concept that needs to die. Now that you can find any music from just a quick search artists shouldn't have to rely on them, at least not as heavily, for advertising.
There was a very, very brief moment from about 2005 to 2011 or so where there was money to be made directly by artists on iTunes or the other music stores where the tracks were like 99 cents each.
But people stopped buying as soon as Spotify became popular, and now any artist that wants to release on Spotify without a label still doesn't make much money.
Relatively “large” truly independent bands like KNOWER are starting to give true home recording a base of proof of functionality.
Power to bandcamp.
Indies are on sporify too. Spotify pays them shit too. Label or not.
They just changed the rules so that if smaller artists don't get a certain number of plays they don't even get a payout.
I'll take "Unethical accounting" for 500, Alex
From the article:
The answer lies in the power imbalance between Spotify and its music suppliers, namely the major record labels that control most of the music streamed on Spotify.
Spotify licenses most of the music it streams from three companies: Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group, also known as The Big Three.
Together, The Big Three hold a 70% share of the music recording industry and a 60% share of the music publishing industry, forming a sort of unholy monopoly over the music industry.
....
The difference between having or not having The Big Three’s music catalog is a life-or-death situation for Spotify.
This gives The Big Three a lot of leverage over Spotify and forces it to pay them nearly 70 cents of every dollar it makes, leaving little room for profits.
How is this news? The price you pay for media of any kind I can think of goes mostly to the rights holders, not the companies physically delivering it to you. You may object to the rights holders being shitty record labels, but that term also includes independent artists. And more to the point, rights holders are by definition the people who are entitled to profit from selling access to the media they own.
If you want to get pissed at someone, get pissed at the record labels sharing a ridiculously small part of their licensing fees with the artists who make their product.
Ugh, yes poor poor spotify, fuck that. Artists can't even make a living making music anymore thanks to spotify. Fuck off blaming artists for trying to get paid. Fuck this article. Oh no it only gets a third of the revenue?! Abhorrent, no it should get ALL the revenue, for doing what, having a server with music on it. Amazing. Fuck spotify.
Is Spotify the villain here or is the “big three”? Because it sounds like Spotify is delivering a service and deserves some profit from that.
But what are the big three doing? Seems like they are just skimming because they hold the IP rights. Are they providing any service?
Have you ever looked into the operating costs of having a server with music on it which over 400M monthly active users use?
I actually work in cloud engineering and regularly price this kind of thing up.
Their costs are salaries not aws bills.
Equity.
In total, at the close of last year, SEC documents show that exactly 65 percent of Spotify was owned by just six parties: the firm’s co- founders, Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon (30.6 percent of ordinary shares between them); Tencent Holdings Ltd. (9.1 percent); and a run of three asset-management specialists: Baillie Gifford (11.8 percent), Morgan Stanley (7.3 percent), and T.Rowe Price Associates (6.2 percent). These three investment powerhouses owned more than 25 percent of Spotify between them — a fact worth remembering next time there’s an argument about whose interests Spotify is acting in when it makes controversial moves (for example, SPOT’s ongoing legal appeal against a royalty pay rise for songwriters in the United States).
Furthermore, according to MBW estimates, which my sources suggest are still solid, two major record companies — Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group — continue to jointly own between six percent and seven percent of Spotify (Sony around 2.35 percent and Universal around 3.5). With Sony and UMG added into the mix, then, the names mentioned here comfortably own more than 70 percent of Spotify.
https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotify-955388/>And yet, they still aren't even close to the highest paying service when it comes to musicians getting their cut.
https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians
It's hilarious that Napster now tops the list. I use Tidal, myself, since it's got great quality audio. Spotify is horrible quality for 2023.
Spotify is horrible quality for 2023
To my surprise, even Spotify's standard (not high or very high) is extremely difficult, if not practically impossible for the average consumer to differentiate from lossless (on better than consumer grade hardware). Upon hearing this, me and several friends decided to test it for ourselves by taking lossless files for several songs and resampling them to the same codec and bitrates that Spotify's standard quality uses, then ABX testing the before and after with Foobar's ABX and exclusive mode plugins (also tried the popular comparison website, but that's apparently less accurate). One of my friends had access to a college studio, I have a dac and sennheiser, and the third had sony wxm4s. To our surprise, none of us could consistently differentiate the two. Its not perfect considering we didn't grab the outputs directly from the streaming platforms, but that would've added extra variables like volume normalizing (louder sounds better).
Our conclusion is that the quality "difference" is likely placebo and probably a waste of bandwidth.
If you want to support an artist pirate their music and see them in concert.
This is outdated and bad information. Most small artists lose money touring. Bigger artists might break even.
If you can buy merch, do that, if you can buy physically do that. Spotify is gonna pay pennies for thousands of streams, so nothing you do on spotify is going to benefit an artist. But "pirate and see live" is probably gonna result in a negative bank balance for artists.
Nothing short of handing them cash in person is truly a guarantee. Really depressing how it's turned out.
I think Taylor Swift just about broke even, mostly thanks to my wife and her friends.
Nice try ticket Master!
Unless it's a ticketmaster concert because fuck them.
This is probably why you get a nearly endless stream of covers and remixes if you just let Amazon Music play random music.
This is why I thought some of their recent actions that hurt the lowest played artists was strange, you want to encourage artists to NOT use the big publishers to help break their triopoly.
I think the most recent changes are fine in practice, but the optics are not great which probably matters a lot.
Profit can be distorted based on how much you're paying your employees.
In this case royalties paid out to imaginary property holders means spotify is functioning exactly how it should. Those people are profiting, spotify's employees are being paid. Everyone directly involved has more money than they need.
How much money would they want to skim to distribute the music? 33-66 split doesn’t sound so bad considered that they don’t produce the music, sign artist, promote them, etc
They can always start their own label if they believe that vertical integration will be more profitable for them.
They tried that with podcasts and it didn’t go as planned
I mostly listen to smaller bands and buy their stuff on Bandcamp. It sucks that Bandcamp was sold (twice now) and will probably go down the shitter, but that seemed like a more sustainable model. Also buying music is nicer than renting it for me.